Saturday, May 12, 2012


SCISSION is back just in time for Theoretical Weekends.  Recently, I re-read CLR James' and Grace Lee's, "Facing Reality."  Although written in the 1950s and although some parts of it are obviously dated, this is an important book.  The wisdom of James is obvious and is pertinent still today, more than a half century after it was written.  What I am posting here is sort of a review which was published in Urgent Tasks #12.  Urgent Task was a journal produced by the Sojourner Truth Organization.  The journal and the organization were anything but typical of the time or of the "communist" movement.  I owe a whole lot to the years I spent in STO.

This is taken from the STO Digital Archives.

Facing Reality
from Urgent Tasks - Number 12
by Paul Lawrence Berman
Summer 1981
C. L. R. James's Facing Reality had a considerable impact ten years ago on certain intellectual-minded circles of the New Left, and looking back, it is easy to see why. In the early 1970's the New Left had entered its Leninist phase and at the same time had begun to disintegrate. Quite a few of us thought these two developments had something to do with one another. Leninism, we thought, at least in the form in which we encountered it, was leading the Movement to doom and disaster. No sooner would a group of student Leftists, or Black militants, or Puerto Rican activists, start waving around volumes from the Little Lenin Library than they would proclaim themselves to be the secret of world revolution, or anyway would claim to know what the secret was. And soon they would plunge into a ghastly cycle of intolerance, dogmatism, splits, bloody purges, and ultimately, of course, despair. Perhaps Lenin was not to blame for this — perhaps he was rolling in his crypt. But many of us suspected that in crucial ways he was, in fact, responsible. Those Little Lenin editions were not doing anyone any good.
Only what theoretical alternative was there? The New Left, rich in numbers and courage, was dirt-poor in knowledge, theory, and experience. By the early '70's the presence of an older, presumably wiser generation of radicals had virtually disappeared from Movement ranks. A hodge-podge of priests, nuns, and earnest professors exercised what passed for leadership. The old-line socialists, called "democratic," had long ago indignantly repudiated the younger generation. The Old Left groupuscules showed an alarming tendency to horrify anyone who saw them in action. Various middle-aged radicals were looking to 19-year-olds for leadership. If ever a movement resembled a decapitated chicken, it was the American New Left in the age of President Nixon.
Many of us, in this circumstance, searched among the classic anarchist writings for a useful alternative. Anarchism had a direct appeal. Like Leninism, it cried out unrestrainedly against injustice and oppression. It was four-square for social revolution, four-square for the victims of exploitation. At the same time it offered a view of radical action and of a self-managed, libertarian socialist future that was much closer than conventional Leninism to the feelings and instincts that had originally impelled many of us into the movement. We liked anarchism's skeptical nature. We liked the fact that it criticized the state and that it contravened the standard Marxist- Leninist argument for a left-wing dictatorship (Marx's and Lenin's subtler views played little part in these New Left debates). And we appreciated anarchism's compatibility with the egalitarian and anti-authoritarian thrust of feminism in that period. Anarchism consequently underwent a boom: all but a handful of the anarchist classics came back into print; numerous anthologies, including one I assembled, received general distribution. And yet the classic anarchist texts did not solve our dilemmas either — this was immediately obvious.
It was Paul Buhle and Radical America who introduced James's Facing Reality into the (mostly student) milieu in which this anarchist-Leninist debate was being conducted. James had written the book in 1958 in a period when he himself and his comrades were struggling out of the "vanguard" fallacies of the old orthodox Trotskyist movement. The book impressed us with what we felt was its authentically proletarian outlook. By this I mean that James never mistook an ideological assumption for a real-life worker. On what to think about the Soviet Union, for instance, he was able to sweep away the torturous uncertainties of the traditional Left by noting that for real workers, life under Communism lacked even the primitive rights workers enjoy in democratic capitalist societies. He was full of practical suggestions for socialist activity that were decidedly different from the shoddy manipulations that many of us associated with "vanguard" politics. He advised socialists to provide workers with accurate information, so that workers could make their own decisions. The socialists should help workers express themselves, which is different from preaching at them. Of course the socialists should preserve and develop socialist theory. And they should put forth their own views, in his words, "as a contribution to that democratic interchange and confrontation of opinion which is the very life-blood of socialist society."
This last point about democratic interchange and confrontation of opinion was especially important. It seemed to many of us that a certain — I do not hesitate to use the word — totalitarian impulse had become part of the standard ideological baggage of the Left. A large number of militants were afraid of public debates within their own ranks, and were unable to distinguish between dissension and chaos. In the papers and journals put out by the various organized sects, you would almost never see views that the party leaders disagreed with. To disagree was to condemn, and many an honest radical seemed to consider it his duty to protect his own comrades from the virus of incorrect opinion. James did not share this conception.
His most original advice to socialists was to keep an eagle eye on the changing forms and contents of workers' struggles in order to identify what about these struggles reveals the existence already, before a revolution, of a socialist society in embryo. The truly "urgent task," to borrow Lenin's phrase, is in short that of "visualizing the content of socialism." By this James did not mean Utopian dreaming but instead sharp observation of the here-andnow of workers' activity where the "facts of the future" (someone else's phrase, not James's) are also facts of the present. To illustrate what he meant by this, James pointed to the Hungarian revolution of 1956. The workers' councils that arose there, he concluded, showed what historical stage of development the international working class had reached, and showed that democratic workers' councils, not the all-powerful state, is the fundamental form of authentic socialism.
Now, not once in any of this, nor in any of his other works, did he acknowledge that these views had anything in common with classical anarchism. He has always called himself, in spite of everything, a Leninist —.though I think that even some of his most fervent admirers will admit privately that James's definition of Leninism is a bit idiosyncratic, not shared by 99.99% of the rest of the world that calls itself Leninist. As to anarchism, in all of his writings he condemns it forcefully. But I must say, James's forcefulness on this point reminds me of nothing so much as Rosa Luxemburg's similar forcefulness in the opening pages of The Mass Strike — an instance of protesting too much. For without question, Facing Reality expresses some anarchist ideas.
"The whole world today lives in the shadow of the state power," the book begins. "This state power is an ever-present self-perpetuating body over and above society. It transforms the human personality into a mass of economic needs to be satisfied by decimal points of economic progress. It robs everyone of initiative and clogs the free development of society. This state power, by whatever name it is called, One-Party State or Welfare State, destroys all pretense of government by the people, of the people. All that remains is government for the people.
"Against this monster, people all over the world, and particularly ordinary working people in factories, mines, fields, and offices, are rebelling every day in ways of their own invention. ..."
A brilliant beginning to the book, in my opinion, but also a not unfamiliar line of thought. A moment ago I referred to the author of the phrase about the facts of the future existing within the facts of the present. That author was Bakunin, and I think that anyone who has read Dolgoff's or Lehning's editions of Bakunin's writings will recognize a Bakuninist resonance to James's anti-state proletarianism.
Those of us who noticed this in the early '70's felt quite excited by our discovery. Surely here, we thought, in James's careful social analysis was the argument that would show the foolish Leninists of the time the error of their ways. Reading on, though, the thought also began to dawn that here too was the book that would show those of us who were drawn to anarchism the error of our own ways, For if there was a Bakuninist resonance to James's book — and there is — there was also much more, James had improved on anarchism His book was a theoretical advance.
The book improved on anarchism in the first case simply by being modern. Modern anarchist thinkers existed, of course, Paul Goodman and Murray Bookchin prominent among them — neither of whom was without a following or without intelligent things to say. But these modern anarchists by anc large paid scant attention to industrial workers or the problems of the working class in general, and slighted the historic role of class conflict Serious anarchist thinking on industrial organization and class struggle hadn't been done since the collapse of Spanish syndicalism in the 1930's. James made up this lack in our view, and in this respect alone this book was bound to have an impact.
Facing Reality improved on anarchism in another respect too however — improved, if that is the word, on it by being, in the end not really an anarchist book at all, For although James's conclusions and choice of topics were plainly in the anarchist mode; and though he articulated a visionary sense of socialist potential that was fully acceptable to anyone with a fondness for Bakunin — nevertheless his method of analysis was not that of anarchism. Perhaps it is misleading to speak of an anarchist methodology at all. Anarchism as an intellectual tradition has insights — lots of insights, lots of true ones — but no particular method of analysis that Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Rocker, etc. can be said to have shared. Anarchist thinkers who have come after them have thus had no established system of analysis to fall back on, and have all too often substituted for system a rote repeating of the old insights, thereby reducing insight to dogma.
James, in Facing Reality, on the other hand, was by no means a dogmatist of the anarchist type. He was an observer, an analyst, above all a dialectician, able to see the sweep of history, the meaning behind the confusion of conflicting and misleading ideologies. That is, he was a true Marxist, philosophically (if not politically in the conventional sense), and on the basis of this was able to liberate libertarianism — to separate out the core of useful anarchist insights from the doctrinaire insistences that for many years have crippled anarchist activity. He was too attached to the flesh-and-blood events of the world around him to cling to musty old doctrine. James used his respect for working people to argue, for instance, that the allegiance of American workers to the Democratic Party is not altogether stupid. Right or wrong (and I happen to believe he is right), this was a point that an outand- out anarchist, who might agree with James on everything else, cannot even consider without shooting himself in the doctrinal foot.
James had managed, in brief, to restate the theory of socialism in a way that recognized the validity of major libertarian insights and yet still preserved, through its reliance on Marxist dialectical and historical methodology, suppleness and solidity of mind. No mean achievement.
Certainly he is not the only thinker in recent decades to come up with a version of socialism that wittingly or unwittingly incorporates elements of anarchism within a larger Marxist framework. Theory along such lines is a main current of the modern period. In the United States the groups around Root and Branch and Telos magazine have in my opinion been particularly effective at this — though I realize any number of people would gladly clobber me with a baseball bat for thinking such a thought. Perhaps the most profound exemplar of this modern theoretical tendency, and the thinker most like James in adhering absolutely to Marxist orthodoxy in philosophic matters, is the Yugoslav philosopher Mihailo Markovic, whose main concern has been to contrast the official Communist Marxism with the writings of Marx himself, which Markovic reveals have a libertarian content.
It should be mentioned that Facing Reality is not exactly the best known of works. There have been several editions since it was first published, each, it seems, obscure and harder to find than the last. At one point three or four years ago, some labor militants who were comrades of mine in New York were passing it hand to hand in xerox. The book does not deserve this obscurity. It is passionate, logical, original, practical, visionary, inspiring, instructive, and (rarest of rarities among books of socialist theory) knowledgeable about the United States. I would say that, for the American Left in this last quarter century, this book, Facing Reality, is our underground classic.

Wednesday, May 09, 2012


No time for commentary.  

No time for capital...

There is a spectre haunting Europe...

The following is from CounterFire.

 0 00

Voters in France and Greece rejected austerity over the weekend - James Meadway argues that it is time to break the crisis of a failed past in favour of a new Europe

French voters celebrate Hollande's victory
French voters celebrate Hollande's victory
At opposite ends of the continent, voters in France and Greece decisively rejected austerity over the weekend. Francois Hollande, first Socialist French President for 17 years, elected with a clear mandate to overturn swingeing spending cuts; in Greece, over 60 per cent of votes cast for anti-austerity parties and candidates, with Syriza, the Coalition of the Radical Left, making the biggest gains. Hollande has promised to rewrite the Merkel-Sarkozy “fiscal compact”, drafted and signed in December last year, that seeks to make austerity in Europe permanent and legally-binding. Syriza, in rejecting offers of a coalition with the defeated parties of austerity, has sparked fresh panic over a Greek exit from the euro.

These are decisive moments in Europe’s crisis. Three factors will determine the course of the next few days and weeks. Two are strictly political. One, purely economic. In first place is the political desire on the part of both France and Germany’s rulers to maintain their strategic alliance. The Franco-German axis is the pivot around which the institutions of Europe turn. It has been the centrepoint of foreign and economic policy for both nations now for sixty years. Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel will do nothing to seriously jeopardise it.

Hollande wishes to include stronger commitments to growth in the fiscal compact, while Merkel is resolutely opposed to any deviation from austerity. Barring the untoward, and as both parties have been carefully briefing, the desire to maintain European unity will take clear precedence. A compromise will be reached, with watery new commitments to supporting investment and growth – perhaps through the European Investment Bank – barely troubling the compact’s drive to impose balanced budgets, continent-wide. This much appears to be widely expected by the financial markets, who have scarcely ruffled themselves over the arrival of Hollande at the Elysee Palace. An initial panic has currently subsided.

The second political factor is in Greece. The centre-right New Democracy, whose collapsed vote placed barely them above Syriza,has failed to form a pro-austerity coalition. New Democracy and Pasok, cohabiting in power since the exit of Prime Minister George Papandreou late last year, do not between them hold enough seats to form a stable majority, while other, smaller parties have rejected a deal outright. Under the Greek constitution, the mandate to form a government passes to the second-place party. Syriza will now attempt to put together a coalition government, reflecting the anti-austerity vote in rejecting the IMF/EU/ECB Memorandum of Understanding, which committed Greek governments to still more dramatic cuts in spending.

Alexis Tsipras, leader of Syriza coalition celebrates with supporters
Alexis Tsipras, leader of Syriza coalition celebrates with supporters
Attempts to stabilise the European crisis at the centre will be damaged by instability from the south. It is close to impossible to predict the outcome of negotiations taking place, or to second guess the probable result of a second election. An anti-austerity coalition rejecting the Memorandum could reasonably expect to receive no further bailout funds from the official sources. Greece would, in these circumstances, be forced into a so-called disorderly default and, more likely than not, out of the euro. As things stand, however, no stable coalition looks likely to be formed, but this merely increases the uncertainty ahead of fresh elections. And uncertainty in Greece can transfer straight back to the north.

The final factor, and the one which determines the whole situation, is economic. Europe’s prolonged debt crisis broke out in October 2009, as the then-newly elected Pasok government revealed Greece’s public debt to be far larger than previously thought. For over two years, efforts have been made to contain and manage the creeping chaos. The EU and European Central Bank, aided and abetted by the IMF, have pursued with ferocious dedication the path of austerity, forcing swingeing public spending cuts and tax increases on crisis-struck countries. The peripheral euro members of Portugal, Greece, Ireland and Spain, alongside no-growth Italy, have been dragged – with the connivance of their national governments – down a road that has led them precisely nowhere: or, more accurately, led them backwards into the mire.

Austerity breeds stagnation. By cutting spending and raising taxes, governments choke off demand. When demand is throttled, firms sell less. They make redundancies, cut hours, chop wages. The unemployed and those on short time spend less. Demand collapses further. An economic death-spiral is established – just as it was in the Great Depression, when national governments attempted to pursue the same course. The crisis deepens, making austerity counterproductive: the clearest example is Greece, where a debt of 130% of GDP in late 2009 has ballooned, after two years of austerity and the recession it worsened, to something approaching 160% of GDP.

The crisis was never, in any case, one of excessive public spending. Portugal, Spain, and Ireland, for example, all ran surpluses on their government accounts over the last decade, spending less than they raised in taxes. The debt crisis emerged as a direct result of the crash of 2008. With financial systems failing, and a recession of exceptional severity breaking out, government debts and deficits ballooned. On top of ten years of chronic trade imbalances and consequent debt-driven growth inside the Eurozone, the situation became critical. Older imbalances ran into newly swollen public balance sheets. Sovereign default – the cancellation of public debt – suddenly became plausible.

But those debts were themselves held inside the European banking system. Banks, as creditors to states, found their once-safe assets that had turned highly risky. Tremors in public finance threatened private banks. French and German banks had huge exposures to peripheral European state debt. A default, or even the risk of default, threatened those banks with collapse. It has been the perceived necessity of preventing a generalised banking failure, akin to that of the 1930s, that has concentrated the minds Europe’s elite. Finance is to be protected from the consequences of its own stupidity, whatever the cost to European economies and society. Austerity, backed up where needed with bailouts intended to keep repayments flowing, was the order of the day: the wrong medicine, for the wrong diagnosis, for the wrong patient.

With no real prospect of an economic recovery in sight, the crisis will continue. Spain’s banking system is threatening to fold under the weight of its bad debt, the government now attempting to arrange a bailout of its third-largest bank. The ECB, whose “Long-Term Refinancing Operation”, launched before Christmas, flooded European financial systems with cheap liquidity, is running out of monetary firepower. But where once purely economic factors drove the maelstrom onwards, they are now joined by the political. The rejection by Europe’s voters of austerity measures is forcing a reckoning on Europe’s institutions and accelerating the pace of collapse.

That collapse will be the result of a stagnant economy, a dysfunctional single currency, and a failed financial system. Its costs should not be carried, through austerity, by European society. Three things need to happen to prevent that. First, austerity must immediately end, across the continent. Second, bad debts must be written off, unilaterally if necessary, led by a Greek default. Where banks fail in consequences, they will need nationalising and controls on the movement of capital introduced. Third, continued euro membership is unsustainable for peripheral Europe. Exits should be arranged.

Once the muck is cleared, the prospect of a sustainable recovery is opened. Breaking the crisis requires a complete break with a failed past. Elections and the rise of an anti-austerity movement bring the prospect into sharp focus. Another Europe is possible.

Monday, May 07, 2012



Sunday, May 06, 2012


Scission theoretical weekends presents:  African Liberation vs. The White Left...

Thanks to People of Color Organize...

African Liberation vs. The White Left

My history as an organizer went from being an unofficial member of the International Socialist Organization to President of the United Socialist Movement of the Americas- Buffalo Chapter to the President of Fight the Power UB. That history has been one of narrowing the struggles I fight and one I stand by fully. As many of you have seen, over the past few months, more and more of my articles and posts have been less about the class struggle and socialism and more about racism and anti-imperialism/settler colonialism. I want to, for those that care to know, explain why I think my primary place right now should be in the African liberation struggle vs the socialist movement proper.

My personal experience as an organizer has been some of the best, and worse, of my life. I’ve witnessed massive victories for events, actions, and movements I have been part of and at the same time I’ve seen massive failure in the same. Part of my experience is that of being the son of Pan-Africanists. I won’t go too deep into it, but my experiences as an organizer and revolutionary have always been shaped and directed very much by the struggles of my own people for liberation from imperialism abroad and settler colonialism here.

Part of why I became a socialist is because I realized that slavery, Jim Crow, imperialism, colonialism, and indeed racism are all part of the same fabric that has been woven by the profit motive. Our 500 years of suffering and dehumanization has and is enabled by capitalism and the necessity of humans able to be exploited. Seeing a human being as chattel or a work animal is a great way to justify said exploitation. Therefore I spend much of my time in USMA especially trying to bring black people into the organization, since we have a direct interest in overthrowing the system.

This work became impossible to do because I started to see that my approach was all wrong. The Occupy Movement, particularly Occupy Buffalo, showed me why black people (political or not) tend to shy away from these movements. I posted an article a while ago about why I don’t support the Occupy Movement and an excerpt from it explains an incident that’s indicative of why I’ve been shying away from the Left:

“A very good instance of this was when an older black woman at Occupy Buffalo during one of the first GA’s brought up a proposal to boycott the Buffalo news establishment (the Buffalo News, Channel 2, 4, and 7 and other outlets) because of the years of racism, classism, and suburban bias that all these institutions have exhibited. Now for anyone who’s black in Buffalo the Buffalo News is worth little to nothing because of how bad it is at reporting on issues in the city and portraying our community in particular in a very negative light while ignoring much of the corruption and nefarious activity that goes on in City Hall or in the suburbs. After making the proposal there was a few blocks that came up and when the facilitator asked one of the women why she blocked the proposal she said “I understand why this is an issue for you but since the news is reporting on the occupation nicely and not slandering us it would hurt the movement to go along with this” aka I don’t really give a hoot since the movement is more important than that issue.”  (From: The 99% Isn’t Me: Being the Minority in the 99%)

What I saw there was the willingness of my “comrades” to throw us under the bus for their goals. I know the racism of the Right very well and I’ve known how to deal with that since I was a child but this kind of racism was new to me consciously but it’s something that I’ve know in the back of my mind for years. Left Racism is something that people treat like the concept of a butt plug, we know it exists and people have them, but everyone denies that THEY have one because they don’t want to be seen as an outcast. Left Racism is something that’s endemic on the Left mostly because most of the Left (being white) has not openly dealt with their white privilege or their own racism, unconscious or not.

I began to study the socialist/anti-capitalist movements in relation to race and their record is abysmal. The Communist and Socialist Parties both were schizophrenic in their placement of blacks in their organizations and movement, especially in the 20′s and 30′s. We were always seen as political pawns much like how many in the Communist Party looked at peasants before Mao came along. This mentality, due to the paternalism of European socialists and the racism of American ones, pushed away many blacks who would have joined the CP and SP (along with other leftist orgs). We left because the struggle to survive the KKK, lynching, Jim Crow, and poverty was seen as an afterthought that’ll be solved when we put in work to overthrow capitalism.

A worse pattern that continues today came on the scene in the 50′s. Here we saw the Civil Rights Movement and related movements take shape and after a while many whites began to support the calls for equality. The problem however was that their equality and our equality were very different. We chanted “Freedom Now”, they responded “Integration right!?”.  From there our struggle for survival became the fight to be able to eat at white lunch counters in Macy’s. After seeing the farce that was the Voting and Civil Rights Acts they killed Malcolm and King and even the few white leaders who were bold enough to speak in public about racism, so we burned America. Whites turned on us as we created the Black Panther Party, All African People’s Revolutionary Parties, and Black Student Unions at schools, saying we were being too violent and angry. After 500 years of not being considered a full person and being treated as such, they should be grateful that they only got one Nat Turner vs. millions.

The above historical example played itself out based on the unspoken assumption from whites that our freedom must be done in a way that is convenient for them, or else we shouldn’t have it at all. The Left joined in this game, once again reducing our struggles for national liberation to pawn pieces to kick capitalism in the balls. The Soviet Union especially was guilty of this, playing one movement off another in order to make sure whoever won was beholden to the party line of the USSR. Early on, China refused to defer it’s movement to the directives of Moscow, and Russia in turn decided to abandon (mostly) China because the Chinese thought they had a right to decide how socialism would work for them. This same game played out in Africa, Latin America and even Yugoslavia.

This paternalism continues today with little and big things. Most socialist organizations spend little time dealing with racism as a distinct oppressive system and still feel the need to reduce it into the capitalist system for the sake of preserving the ideological purity of Marxism in most cases. This make me feel, as a socialist no less, like we don’t matter except as again, pawns to be steered into the direction they want us to go. Also the simple assumption among most socialists that Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism are universal and applicable to every society is itself quite racist. African and Latin American society for instance has had little problem integrating religion into the socialist movement as a positive force. Also it’s hard to use any European socialist model when there is no traditional working class to speak of to be the “vanguard”. These are daily annoyances for me and things that until now never fit together in my head.

At the end of the day I realized, as a whole, whites would quite willingly (and perhaps without knowing) throw POC under the bus in order to preserve their middle class lifestyle, get their guy elected (eg. Reconstruction era), or have a revolution that benefits mostly them and their people (American Revolution, Cuba and it’s race problems, the 70′s backlash against the Black Power Movement). Malcolm X and others were right when they said that in many ways we have no place among whites, because at this point in history we really don’t, at least not as equal participants. There needs to be a critical self-reflection on the part of the white left to challenge their own racism and privilege before many of us will decide to stand on the frontline with them. Too it’s hard to see the Wall Street executive when Joe Cop and KKK McGee is killing and oppressing us right up in our faces with burning crosses and mandatory sentencing.

The above conclusion is why I have been re-positioning myself in the movement. I realize the ultimate importance of the class struggle but at the same time without any redress of the race and gender struggle there can be no stable class unity. If blacks are to be involved in the world socialist movement we demand we do it as equals and on our own terms not those of the white Left. It’s not to say I want separatism or any of that, but I do agree that my people and other oppressed people need their own independent movements and organizations so that we may assert our own power on our own terms. The one time when black people, in the US at least, really had some independent power was with the Black Panthers. They were socialists and were committed to the revolution but they also knew that it couldn’t happen without black people having self-determination; otherwise the cycle of racial oppression would continue under whatever system replaced this one. Before they were killed off by the FBI the BPP had a real chance at creating a free black nation able to fully participate in the revolution.

I’ve done much of my work over the past year with Fight the Power, a radical, left wing, black power organization dedicated to the African revolution here and abroad. We understand our common struggle with other oppressed people, including poor whites, but we know we are also the only ones who can really fight our struggle therefore we put our primary focus there. I do the same, stand in solidarity with other oppressed people while building up my own community. From there I can only hope those whites who are truly allies educate and organize their communities against racism so that we can come together (we may already have with the Occupy movement although I see it has severe flaws) where we can fight for a new world.

Well that’s my thoughts on race and class and my place within the movement. I hope some of this is useful for people to think about these relationships. Regardless, it takes a lot of intellectual and emotional weight off my shoulders so that I can continue my work. Regardless of the above I still see my white comrades as brothers and sisters of the same race and struggle and I hope that those I can truly call allies will be blessed because of their will to challenge themselves and their peers. Thank all of you and continue the struggle for freedom and liberation!

- William Richardson